Brainstorm
Force of Will
Lion's Eye Diamond
Counterbalance
Sensei's Divining Top
Tarmogoyf
Phyrexian Dreadnaught
Goblin Lackey
Standstill
Natural Order
I agree it's difficult to implement right but a significant fraction just conceding before mulligans is just bullshit.
Maybe something if you concede in the first 3 turns - #mulligans or something.
There's also a difference between conceding when you can't win anymore and when you didn't even try.
Bad matchups are always a thing but they are rarely unwinnable.
In general, it seems like the casual crowd - especially from the commander community - is more interested in goldfishing with minor to no opposition.
For me that's just jerking off with (virtual) cardboard.
There is no attempt at improving your play or deck, no appreciation for the strategic elements of the game.
However, the format being about 50% Golos + the ~4 decks that can actually beat it doesn't help.
That's why I'm complaining about their management of the online only formats as they have basically infinite data but they choose not to do anything.
If the format sucks and doesn't matter, take the 5 min and ban the most played commanders and see what happens.
At that point, just remove PWs being able to be commanders in Brawl formats in general.
It's broken.
Yeah, Brawl being EDH's kid brother format, it's going to attract a lot of that "I was told I could have fun *my way*, which means I win 90% of the time with my trash tier decks inspired by Tool lyrics" crowd, and without a way to actually build a community that is interested in playing decks you agree are fair, you'll just keep running into this problem. You can't just have an open "casual" room because players will happily walk in with meta decks and roflstomp the Timmies, and rules about how often people get to mulligan just force people to play out bad draw hands that waste everyone's time. I dunno.
All Spells Primer under construction: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e...Tl7utWpLo0/pub
PM me if you want to contribute!
Why does it matter? That format is for casuals. If you want a non-casual experience where the other person is actually trying to maximize winning, join a competitive game.
In a casual game, the other person is trying to maximize FUN instead (which to them may mean dropping games with bad hands, or even hands with T1 wins that are "too easy" and boring, or against decks they don't like, or because the opponent played Mountain with a weird art). Fun is subjective, so players may quit for any number of reasons. All are valid. Their objective may not be to win. Especially if they joined just to "cast 20 white spells" for the day.
I avoid Arena for that reason. But those people deserve a space to play and enjoy the game too. If it's not for you, why not play in competitive queues instead?
While I see your points, I still believe there should be some changes to how the queue works.
On the flip side, how "fun" is it when every second opponent concedes 1-3 turns in for the casual?
You might get a win but didn't get to play, so what was gained?
Did anyone have fun?
I'm playing arena only because cardboard crack and I'm not shelving out money for virtual cardboard on MTGO.
Since Standard and Historic also usually suck balls due to bad set design and delayed bannings, I like singleton formats since you don't play vs the same 15 cards all day and you get some variance.
At least in theory.
Maybe I'm just a grumpy old man, who yells at kids to get of his lawn.
However, it seems a general trend in gaming, that easy mode seems to become the new default since nobody wants to try and struggle anymore.
Depends on how the casual player defines fun.
If your fun means only playing out good matchups so you get the satisfaction of winning a lot and farm your daily rewards faster, then yes.
If your fun means skipping games with mulls to 5 or manascrew and only having to play good hands, then yes.
If your fun means not having to play against certain "unfun" deck archetypes, then yes.
Their fun probably doesn't come from the short 1-3 turn non-game itself but from the next game (which they may enjoy more). Conceding lets them skip ahead to the next game faster. They might end up spending 90% of their time in games they enjoy, even if they lose 60% of matches. But if the reward system doesn't care about win%, just quantity of games/time played, then it's not completely crazy to delegate that time to "enjoyable" games and skip the "unfun" ones.
I just accepted Eternal is for us grumpy old men, and Arena is for kids and new players.
If you want competitive games on Arena but hate the narrow Standard metas, there's always Limited.
It's not an 'easy mode' thing, it's about in-game objectives. If you are a F2P player and have limited time, you cannot waste time with side-tracking. If you need to 'attack with 45 creatures' in order to clear your daily quest you want to do it as quickly and as easily as possible. 'Fun' happens after that. MTGO is way better than Arena in that regard. You really have little excuse in MTGO, in 'casual' modes, to drop games, but in Arena, you have every reason if you are F2P and have limited time. You cannot be durdling around against the odds, you need to be all about achieving in-game goals to ensure you can continue to be F2P. After you do that sacrificial job, then you can have 'fun' and play whatever you want in whatever mode you want.
Yes, but what what does then prevent your opponent from conceding those games as well?
If everyone concedes the games they don't want to play probably 90% will be instant concessions.
Do people then only play mirrors because 50% win chance or not because it's a mirror and boring?
Considering this it makes actually more sense to play ranked/limited/events to get your quests since opponents are actually playing the games out.
If the last Zendikar was available as Limited, I would play that because that was the best limited set in ages.
No right / wrong answers here. For ex, for 'kill x creatures' quests I have a deck 100% composed of removal, so I just enter whatever mode gives me a meta with great likelihood of creatures being in play and that will not screw my ranking. Don't care about the game type as long as it goes long and I can get loads of creatures to remove.
I have my current deck (black + a little red and blue) and a mono white and mono red deck.
If I can complete the current daily with my current deck I do. But if I have to use the mono colored one I switch from ranked to open play and concede p much as soon as the pace slows down or my opponent stabilizes.
Unless it's kill X creatures then I'll just reroll it tomorrow. Those challanges are impossible to complete in a reasonable time.
I always just insta-concede against anyone who’s not Zoid. Against Zoid, I think really hard about my land drops for three turns and then concede.
(Jk I don’t have Arena)
It's official, people tried the 60 basic lands protest in Legacy.
(It failed, of course.)
Wow, this is some interesting data to look at:
This is all the matchup data since 8/8 (excluding, by the author, Koke_MTG, the September 26th Invitational) for the 15 most played decks in that time frame from the Legacy Data Collection Discord.
"The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
—Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order
It would help if people would only fill in either half triangle.
No idea who is favored here.
Any info on the sample size?
Apparently, statistical uncertainties haven't made it far enough.
Can't say, wasn't me who made it. That is something like 24 events, I think. But I don't know how much data each field might have in it.
"The Ancients teach us that if we can but last, we shall prevail."
—Kaysa, Elder Druid of the Juniper Order
The source is volraths data project. I did a more rigorous treatment of the same data. IIRC there were about 25 matchups which had N>30. Of those the only statistically significant matchups (FWER <= o.05) were that delver stomps on spell combo and D&T beats bant.
With this many comparisons your family wise error rate goes through the roof (ie very likely to have at least 1 false positive among all the matchups you are testing)
Edit: Ninjaed by Reeplcheep
I wouldn't label it as hypothesis testing but just as simple counting experiment to first order.
If you interpret the data as Bernoulli experiment with n matches an k wins.
The error then becomes sqrt(k(n-k)) if you assume the result of the data is close to the "true" value.
There are currently 235 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 235 guests)